Mayflower District Court
#brendapopplewell-v-101waves-et-al
This is the start of #brendapopplewell-v-101waves-et-al channel.
clerkFlow Bot2025-05-22 09:58 a.m.
clerkFlow pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 09:04 p.m.
Kezzera 2025-05-22 09:59 a.m.@Toby
Kezzera 2025-05-22 09:59 a.m.
(This is likely seeking a FOIA release order)
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 10:31 a.m.
hello your honor
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 11:08 a.m.
filed through the website as well @Toby
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 11:08 a.m.
God bless
BrendaPopplewellhello your honor
Toby 2025-05-22 11:09 a.m.
Hi brenda
BrendaPopplewellfiled through the website as well @Toby
Toby 2025-05-22 11:09 a.m.
Thank you
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 11:20 a.m.@Toby i move for expedited review of the petition. the procedure outlined in the Freedom of Information Access Act is intended to be a swift and easy process—hence why a release order must be complied with "within 24 hours" under the statute.
Toby 2025-05-22 11:21 a.m.
I'm reading your petition as we speak
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 11:21 a.m.
it would defeat the purpose if i had to wait 7 days for them to be summoned, produce an answer, go through discovery, MTDs, summary judgment motions, etc.
Toby 2025-05-22 11:51 a.m.
The Court notes the filing of the complaint and orders the Clerk to issue summonses accordingly.
TobyThe Court notes the filing of the complaint and orders the Clerk to issue summonses accordingly.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 11:52 a.m.
can i do it?
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 11:52 a.m.
i can use the summon cmd
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 11:52 a.m.
given that Ashley is inactive
Toby 2025-05-22 11:52 a.m.
If you'd like to
BrendaPopplewellgiven that Ashley is inactive
Toby 2025-05-22 11:52 a.m.
That is what I was contemplating
BrendaPopplewell used /summon
clerkFlow Bot2025-05-22 11:53 a.m.:white_check_mark: Successfully summoned @Nicklaus (edited)
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 11:53 a.m.
Served upon the Solicitor General Nicklaus_S @Toby
Toby 2025-05-22 11:53 a.m.
Thank you
BrendaPopplewellBrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 11:57 a.m.@Toby will the court be granting expedited review (something along the lines of 48 hours to reply, or an emergency hearing in-game)?
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 11:57 a.m.
as it stands, they have 7 days, which is quite a lot
BrendaPopplewellToby 2025-05-22 11:58 a.m.
Yes, I was thinking of doing an in-game hearing, or if that isn't possible due to IRL hindrances then giving them 48 hours to reply
TobyYes, I was thinking of doing an in-game hearing, or if that isn't possible due to IRL hindrances then giving them 48 hours to reply
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 12:03 p.m.@Nicklaus are you available?
Toby used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-05-22 12:03 p.m. @Toby has added @Nicklaus to the case channel.
Case Modified
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 12:57 p.m.@Toby well, given that we're all online, could you schedule a hearing for in 30 minutes or an hour?
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 12:57 p.m.
that should give everyone enough notice to attend
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 12:57 p.m.
i'm not sure if Nicklaus is in school, though, so maybe we should do it in this chat
BrendaPopplewelli'm not sure if Nicklaus is in school, though, so maybe we should do it in this chat
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 12:57 p.m.@Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:00 p.m.
why would we have a hearing
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:00 p.m.
that is not the procedure for a FOIA action
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:01 p.m.
im responding to your complaint
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:05 p.m.
It’s a petition
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:06 p.m.
we should have a hearing because the Freedom of Information Access Act would be meaningless if citizens attempting to get information about their own government have to go through weeks of litigation to cause compliance with the law @Nicklaus @Toby
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:07 p.m.
the Act expressly states—for this very reason—that disclosure orders require compliance within 24 hours
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:07 p.m.
then write a motion
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:07 p.m.
I did
BrendaPopplewellBrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:07 p.m.
.
Toby 2025-05-22 01:07 p.m.
I agree that having a hearing is more beneficial to expedite the matter
Toby 2025-05-22 01:08 p.m.
But that is if all parties can attend
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:08 p.m.
she hasnt stated any grounds to expediate this
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:08 p.m.
I just did...
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:08 p.m.
nor have i had the chance to respond to anything
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:08 p.m.
she seeks declaratory relief and an injunction
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:08 p.m.
this is no different from any other case
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:08 p.m.
including at the federal level
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:09 p.m.
well, let's start with this: is the Government opposing my FOIA release petition?
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:09 p.m.@Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:09 p.m.
nor have i had the chance to respond to anything
Toby 2025-05-22 01:09 p.m.
Ok, nick how quickly can you file a response
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:09 p.m.
i dont know tovy
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:09 p.m.
i was going to submit a mtd
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:09 p.m.
24 hrs for response and 24 hrs for reply?
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:09 p.m.
no that wont work
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:10 p.m.
i am volunteering at school tmrw and then going out-of-state for memorial day
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:10 p.m.
so i have stuff to do today already
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:10 p.m.
this is a petition, it's not like an ordinary complaint. it's customary to do a hearing and then you state your reasons on the record
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:10 p.m.
and i can respond, on the record, and toby makes an informed ruling
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:10 p.m.
his honor toby*(edited)
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:11 p.m.@Toby your honor, the defense is trying to trick you, and i know that you cannot be tricked
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:11 p.m.
a hearing is perfectly appropriate
Toby 2025-05-22 01:13 p.m.
I have from the very beginning been more inclined to conduct a hearing, purely on the time sensitive nature of this action, though seeing Nick can't make it, can you have someone else appear instead of you @Nicklaus ?
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:20 p.m.
a hearing for what
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:20 p.m.
a hearing on whether the relief should be granted
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:20 p.m.
you're putting me in an untenable position
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:20 p.m.
on my petition, yes.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:20 p.m.
that's how petitions work
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:20 p.m.
either you file a response or you respond in a hearing
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:20 p.m.
the same way habeas petitions work
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:20 p.m.
or expungement petitions
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:20 p.m.
there's a petition --> a reply/hearing
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:20 p.m.
well brenda i dont know if you knew this
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:20 p.m.
and, if necessary, an evidentiary hearing
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:21 p.m.
expungement and habeas petitions have procedural rules
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:21 p.m.
this has no procedural rule
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:21 p.m.
its a civil case
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:21 p.m.
the FOIA creates a cause of action
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:21 p.m.
i said i want to submit a MTD
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:21 p.m.
you can't MTD a petition, that's simply not how petitions work
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:21 p.m.
you can respond, though
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:21 p.m.
this is still governed by the old law of England and our statutes
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:21 p.m.
and petitions must be conducted the way petitions are conducted
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:22 p.m.@Toby your honor, being an intellectual in the old law of England and Scotland, wouldn't you agree?
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:22 p.m.
that petitions can't be treated like complaints. there's a petition and a reply/hearing
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:22 p.m.
that's surely how it's always been done
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:23 p.m.
well surely hearings arent held 30 minutes after the respondent is summoned
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:23 p.m.
well, you're here. you've indicated that you read the petition.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:23 p.m.
how much time do you need to research
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:23 p.m.
no i havent
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:23 p.m.
i said im busy broski
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:24 p.m.
FOIA actions are NOT conducted like this at a federal level
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:24 p.m.
nor were they conducted like this in ridgeway
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:25 p.m.
you have submitted a complanit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, or in the alternative, a petition for mandamus
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:28 p.m.
that is not, true.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:28 p.m.
i submitted a petition authorized by statute
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:29 p.m.
that is not a complaint
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:29 p.m.
then why do you seek declaratory relief
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:29 p.m.
and whatever may be the case in the Union of Columbia, this is the state of mayflower
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:29 p.m.
the statue does not authorize that
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:29 p.m.
the statute authorizes equitable relief
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:29 p.m.
obviously, an injunction necessitates a finding
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:29 p.m.
and that finding is a decree
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:29 p.m.
you're playing a game of semantics here
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:29 p.m.
now ur just rambling
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:29 p.m.
is it an issue that we're requesting a declaration?
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:30 p.m.
if so, we can just waive that part
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:30 p.m.
not the only issue is it
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:30 p.m.
then let's address ur other issue in the hearing, shall we?
Toby 2025-05-22 01:30 p.m.
Right,
Toby 2025-05-22 01:30 p.m.
what is at issue here, I apologise as I'm in the mids of making dinner, so my sole attention isn't focused here
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:31 p.m.
same
BrendaPopplewellToby 2025-05-22 01:32 p.m.
Yes, broadly, under the common law procedural rules, they are treated differently, but Scotland is slightly different as it has its own legal system
Toby 2025-05-22 01:32 p.m.
But anyways, @Nicklaus are you able to attend a hearing
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:32 p.m.
no
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:32 p.m.
and i dont know who else would be able to
Toby 2025-05-22 01:32 p.m.
What about the AG or DAG?
TobyWhat about the AG or DAG?
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:45 p.m.
no
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:46 p.m.
what are the procedural rules for this that dont exist
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 01:46 p.m.@Brenda
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:53 p.m.
i'm unsure why you ask me. you're the one who made the claim
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 01:53 p.m.@Nicklaus
Nicklausno
Toby 2025-05-22 02:01 p.m.
Why not
Toby 2025-05-22 02:06 p.m.@Nicklaus Is no one in the AG's office physically able to attend a hearing?
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 02:06 p.m.
what do you mean why not
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 02:06 p.m.
cuz theyre busy
Nicklaus Server2025-05-22 02:06 p.m.
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 02:06 p.m.
even if they were theyre not familiar with the claim
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 02:07 p.m.
ur trying to schedule a hearing the same day as a summons
Toby 2025-05-22 02:13 p.m.
I never said today, I just want a hearing on the books for sometime soon, but if no one is available, then have a response filed. How long do you need to have it filed ASAP
TobyI never said today, I just want a hearing on the books for sometime soon, but if no one is available, then have a response filed. How long do you need to have it filed ASAP
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 02:25 p.m.
im drafting a response rn my glorious king
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 02:26 p.m.
but idk how long ill be available
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 02:26 p.m.
like i said
Nicklaus 2025-05-22 02:26 p.m.
maybe done tonight maybe done tmrw
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 02:28 p.m.
Sounds like he'll need 48 hours @Toby
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 02:28 p.m.
That works for me. I'd like to reserve my right to reply to his response
Toby 2025-05-22 02:54 p.m.
48 hours it shall be
Toby48 hours it shall be
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-22 03:10 p.m.@Nicklaus @dero
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-24 04:03 p.m.@Toby no reply
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-24 04:03 p.m.
given that the government has defaulted, i ask that the petition be granted
Toby 2025-05-24 07:43 p.m.
opinion and order is in the making, though it may take up to a week, purely down to how busy I am over the next couple of days
Toby 2025-05-24 08:21 p.m.@Brenda can you please provide the first link in this ss please 
Toby 2025-05-24 08:25 p.m.
nvm its in your petition
Nicklaus 2025-05-26 03:38 p.m.@Toby I’ve resigned from the doj
Nicklaus 2025-05-26 03:39 p.m.
can you add Singhski
Nicklauscan you add Singhski
Toby 2025-05-26 03:49 p.m.
Sure
Toby used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-05-26 03:49 p.m. @Toby has added @singhski to the case channel.
Case Modified
singhski 2025-05-26 04:33 p.m.@Toby I intend to file a motion to dismiss soon on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, which, if granted, would render the entire judgment void ab initio .
Toby 2025-05-26 04:34 p.m.
I straight up did not just write this judgment
Toby 2025-05-26 04:34 p.m.
But ok
TobyI straight up did not just write this judgment
singhski 2025-05-26 04:35 p.m.
As this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant, any future judgment would still be void ab initio due to the fundamental defect in jurisdiction.
singhski 2025-05-26 04:36 p.m.
Which is why I contend that it's imperative the Court address that motion first before rendering any resulting judgment
Toby 2025-05-26 04:36 p.m.
What is your timescale
singhski 2025-05-26 04:37 p.m.
I'll have it done by tomorrow morning
Tobyopinion and order is in the making, though it may take up to a week, purely down to how busy I am over the next couple of days
singhski 2025-05-26 04:37 p.m.
But surely that shouldn't be an issue given this^
Toby 2025-05-26 04:37 p.m.
Ok
Toby 2025-05-26 04:37 p.m.
Cc @Brenda
singhskiBut surely that shouldn't be an issue given this^
Toby 2025-05-26 04:37 p.m.
I've already got it written, I had found spare time
Toby 2025-05-26 04:38 p.m.
But you can submit
singhski 2025-05-26 04:38 p.m.
Okay, but it's important we address the jurisdictional defect first before we proceed
singhski 2025-05-26 04:38 p.m.
otherwise that opinion and order would be unlawful from the outset
Toby 2025-05-26 04:39 p.m.
We'll determine that when you submit
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:06 p.m.@Toby I object given that the Government missed the deadline.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:06 p.m.
This was before Solicitor General Nicklaus_s resigned.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:07 p.m.
The failure to raise a defense within the 48-hour deadline is a waiver of that defense.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:09 p.m.
This case was intended to be resolved in a same-day emergency hearing. This Court was kind enough to grant 48 hours—a deadline the Government intentionally missed to delay the proceedings.
@Toby (edited)
BrendaPopplewellThis case was intended to be resolved in a same-day emergency hearing. This Court was kind enough to grant 48 hours—a deadline the Government intentionally missed to delay the proc...(edited)
Toby 2025-05-26 05:13 p.m.
I'm a little confused as to why the prior SG didn't raise any issues with the court, but seeing as this SG said he'll have it by tomorrow, he has 4 weeks ago to submit it, and if that expires and there is no submission, then no further extensions will be granted
TobyI'm a little confused as to why the prior SG didn't raise any issues with the court, but seeing as this SG said he'll have it by tomorrow, he has 4 weeks ago to submit it, and...
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:14 p.m.
Well, the SG is not intending to file a response. He wants to file an MTD which is improper given that this is a petition.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:14 p.m.
There's no such thing as an MTD to a petition....
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:14 p.m.
It goes like this: Petition --> Answer --> Ruling
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:16 p.m.
So I ask that he be forced to raise all issues in an Answer to the petition.
@Toby
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:17 p.m.
Otherwise he could just MTD, wait for a ruling on that, then get an additional X days to file an answer and needlessly delay proceedings
Toby 2025-05-26 05:18 p.m.
He's arguing that this court lacks personal jurisdiction, that can't be argued in an answer
Toby 2025-05-26 05:18 p.m.
I'm sympathetic to your need for expedited proceedings, but he has 9 hours from now, and if he passes it, then that's it
TobyHe's arguing that this court lacks personal jurisdiction, that can't be argued in an answer
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:18 p.m.
Well... then he should file an answer along with his MTD
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:19 p.m.
That's only fair given they've missed a deadline
BrendaPopplewellWell... then he should file an answer along with his MTD
Toby 2025-05-26 05:20 p.m.
No, I'm not agreeing to that
Toby 2025-05-26 05:20 p.m.
I do however agree that there ought to be a level playing field
Toby 2025-05-26 05:21 p.m.
Since they are getting an extention
Toby 2025-05-26 05:22 p.m.
Hence why they're getting 9 hours and nothing more
singhski 2025-05-26 05:33 p.m.@Toby The objection is entirely unfounded. The issue is not the missed deadline, but improper service—specifically, the complaint was not attached. Without proper service, the Solicitor General cannot be expected to file a response. We weren't obligated to respond. In fact, a response is not even appropriate until there is proper service.
singhski 2025-05-26 05:33 p.m.
Accordingly, the Court should address jurisdictional defect before issuing any opinion or order, because again, this could be void ab initio . I know Your Honor swiftly defeated the objection but that's my piece.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:35 p.m.
lol? you were issued a summons and that's on the record
singhski 2025-05-26 05:35 p.m.
And if opposing counsel chortles and barks at the appropriateness of a response when service isn't proper, that's her giving into addressing a Motion to Dismiss, because we'd need to consider first whether the Court lacks personal jurisdiction
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:35 p.m.
the /summons command was literally developed and approved by judges on this bench
singhski 2025-05-26 05:35 p.m.
They developed and approved wrong
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:36 p.m.
well, that's a non-issue. the Solicitor General was pinged and furnished with a copy of the petition in this channel and issued a summons in DMs
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:37 p.m.@Toby
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:37 p.m.
service this way has been done for ages in this court
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:37 p.m.
like i said, the /summons command was literally developed by this court
BrendaPopplewellwell, that's a non-issue. the Solicitor General was pinged and furnished with a copy of the petition in this channel and issued a summons in DMs
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:37 p.m.
he has to be given a copy of the pleading. correct.
he was given a copy in this channel
he was given a copy in this channel
BrendaPopplewellwell, that's a non-issue. the Solicitor General was pinged and furnished with a copy of the petition in this channel and issued a summons in DMs
singhski 2025-05-26 05:38 p.m.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. "Something is wrong in the state of Denmark" Hamlet, Act I, Scene IV
singhski 2025-05-26 05:38 p.m.
Copy in channel ≠ copy of pleading when summoned, which is a prerequiste of proper service
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:39 p.m.
incorrect. the rules simply state that a copy must be served within 5 days
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:40 p.m.
he was given a copy—in this channel—within 5 days of the petition being filed with the court
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:40 p.m.
and he was further issued a summons in his DMs by the bot
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:40 p.m.
there's no requirement that the copy must be given in his DMs
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:41 p.m. 
singhski 2025-05-26 05:41 p.m.
?? "service of summons is the procedure by which a court…asserts” personal jurisdiction. Mississippi Pub. Corp. v. Murphree , 326 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1946)
singhski 2025-05-26 05:42 p.m.
The rules stipulate that the service must occur within 5 days of the filing of the initial pleading
singhski 2025-05-26 05:42 p.m.
Service of process is the vehicle by which the Court asserts personal jurisdiction. Absent proper service, the Court lacks the authority to proceed.
BrendaPopplewellincorrect. the rules simply state that a copy must be served within 5 days
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:42 p.m. 
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:42 p.m.
I'm gonna wait for Judge Toby to come online
BrendaPopplewellClick to see attachment.
singhski 2025-05-26 05:43 p.m.
So where is the initial pleading attached to this message?
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:43 p.m.
doesn't need to be physically attached with a paperclip
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:43 p.m.
i just have to give you a copy within 5 days
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:43 p.m.
i gave you that copy within this very channel and Nicklaus was pinged
Toby 2025-05-26 05:44 p.m.
Why do we always have to have these debates when I'm in bed
Toby 2025-05-26 05:45 p.m.@singhski are you arguing that service isn't proper because the prior SG was not served with a copy of the petition directly
singhski 2025-05-26 05:45 p.m.
Mayf. R. Civ. P. 7(d); "At the time of personal service of process a copy of the initial pleading must be delivered to the party on whom service is made. The date and hour of service must be endorsed on the original process and all copies of it by the person making the service. The party seeking to effect personal service must furnish the person making service with the necessary copies."
singhski 2025-05-26 05:45 p.m.
Before a court “may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied.” Omni Capital Int'l v. Rudolf Wolff Co ., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987). And that service must be “in compliance with applicable law.” Ins. Corp. of Ir ., 456 U.S. at 716 n.6.
BrendaPopplewellClick to see attachment.
singhski 2025-05-26 05:46 p.m.
This is frankly a sophist citation, because it only stipulates that the summons must be served on the defendant within 5 days of filing the initial pleading
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:47 p.m. 
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:47 p.m.
by the time he was served, the petition had been filed in this channel
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:47 p.m.
making your argument asinine
singhski 2025-05-26 05:47 p.m.
Hello? 
singhski 2025-05-26 05:47 p.m.
Hello? Mayf. R. Civ. P. 7(d); "At the time of personal service of process a copy of the initial pleading must be delivered to the party on whom service is made. The date and hour of service must be endorsed on the original process and all copies of it by the person making the service. The party seeking to effect personal service must furnish the person making service with the necessary copies."
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:47 p.m.
by the time he was served, the petition had been filed in this channel
singhski 2025-05-26 05:47 p.m.
Where is this? This is what we require for service to be proper in the State of Mayflower
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:47 p.m.
meaning, he had a copy of it available
singhski 2025-05-26 05:47 p.m.
Hello? 
singhski 2025-05-26 05:48 p.m.
So, instead of you delivering a copy of the initial pleading, you wanted the Solicitor General to go search for it? Seems to me to be an admitted contravention of the Mayflower Rules of Civil Procedure.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:48 p.m.
that's the process developed by this court
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:49 p.m.
if you have a problem with it, you should take it up with the Administrative Office
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:49 p.m.
in fact, i dont recall a single instance where a copy of the complaint had to be made via DMs
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:49 p.m.
they've almost always been served via case channels
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:49 p.m.
moreover, when replies/MTDs are served, they are also served via case channels
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:50 p.m.
i'm confident that—were i to go through your old cases–i can find examples of you serving MTDs, or responses, in case channels @singhski
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:50 p.m.
should we do that?
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:50 p.m.
can you represent, under oath, that you have not done that
BrendaPopplewelli'm confident that—were i to go through your old cases–i can find examples of you serving MTDs, or responses, in case channels @singhski
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:50 p.m.@Toby can we have Singhski sworn in
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:50 p.m.
i would like to invoke the doctrine of judicial estoppel
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:50 p.m.
i want him sworn in to testify, under oath, that he has not done the thing which he claims today to be improper
singhski 2025-05-26 05:51 p.m.
LOL! But, here's the nuance.
singhski 2025-05-26 05:51 p.m.
Say if we were to even entertain your sophism even for a minute
singhski 2025-05-26 05:51 p.m.@Toby just a minute Your Honor
singhski 2025-05-26 05:52 p.m.
You'll see that most, if not all, of my filings always have the caption, "Cc: @[opposing counsel]" or I at least ping them, meeting the delivery bar
BrendaPopplewellfiled through the website as well @Toby
singhski 2025-05-26 05:52 p.m.
Here however, the ping is absent.
BotclerkFlowBrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:53 p.m.
.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:53 p.m.
ping is right there
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:53 p.m.
moreover, he was instructed in DMs in the summons to find the petition in this channel
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:53 p.m.
so again, a complete non-issue
singhski 2025-05-26 05:53 p.m.
The only person you delivered that to was Toby—in a physical sense—Nick peeped over Toby's desk
singhski 2025-05-26 05:53 p.m.
" The date and hour of service must be endorsed on the original process and all copies of it by the person making the service. "
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:54 p.m.
"The doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding" 18 Moore's Federal Practice § 134.30, p. 134-62 (3d ed. 2000)
The Government cannot argue service via case channels is improper when the Government has used case channels to make service in prior cases. That is strictly prohibited under the doctrine.
@Toby
The Government cannot argue service via case channels is improper when the Government has used case channels to make service in prior cases. That is strictly prohibited under the doctrine.
BrendaPopplewellping is right there
singhski 2025-05-26 05:54 p.m.
Not a ping + copy of initial pleading, so your argument there is errant
BotclerkFlowBrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:54 p.m.
. ping is here
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:54 p.m.
he was pinged in a channel containing the petition
BrendaPopplewell. ping is here
singhski 2025-05-26 05:54 p.m.
Copy of initial pleading?
BrendaPopplewellhe was pinged in a channel containing the petition
singhski 2025-05-26 05:55 p.m.
Yet, not delivered to him.
BrendaPopplewellfiled through the website as well @Toby
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:55 p.m.
.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:55 p.m.
initial pleading was already filed in the channel
singhski 2025-05-26 05:55 p.m.
Yet, not "delivered" to him.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:55 p.m.
and then nicklaus was pinged
singhski 2025-05-26 05:55 p.m.
Yet, not "delivered to him".
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:55 p.m.
It was delivered to him
singhski 2025-05-26 05:55 p.m.
No, he entered the courtroom and peeped Toby's desk, he was never handed the papers
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:55 p.m.
When you click a channel, all messages are loaded and delivered to your device electronically
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:55 p.m.
Nicklaus was pinged here and clicked the channel
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:55 p.m.
And he clearly saw and downloaded the petition
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:55 p.m.
Again, I would like you to be sworn in under the doctrine of judicial estoppel
singhski 2025-05-26 05:56 p.m.
But it wasn't delivered to him.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:56 p.m.
It was
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:56 p.m.
This is electronic delivery
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:56 p.m.
Every message that you see on your screen is delivered to your device
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:56 p.m.
otherwise, how are you seeing them?
BrendaPopplewellEvery message that you see on your screen is delivered to your device
singhski 2025-05-26 05:56 p.m.
The screen ma'am isn't the party filing the initial pleading
singhski 2025-05-26 05:57 p.m.
Nor can we get the screen to later testify to having served the pleading to the Solicitor General
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:57 p.m.
No,but I'm sure we can bring in Nicklaus to testify that he in fact saw the petition
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:57 p.m.
and has had it downloaded on his device
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:57 p.m.
This is an asinine attempt to play semantics to delay proceedings
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 05:58 p.m.@Toby
singhski 2025-05-26 06:05 p.m.
Mayf. R. Civ. P. 7(d) unequivocally states: "At the time of personal service of process..." not after in a case channel. Stop arguing judicial estoppel when this language isn't repeated for other pleadings such as motions
singhski 2025-05-26 06:07 p.m.
This is the critical juncture for proper personal service; yet, no copy of the initial pleading accompanies it. Plaintiff is merely grasping at illusions in a futile effort to sustain a procedurally defective case.
singhski 2025-05-26 06:07 p.m.
The Plaintiff cannot cure a jurisdictional defect with retroactive assumptions or procedural shortcuts.
singhski 2025-05-26 06:08 p.m.
No amount of rhetoric can substitute for what is plainly missing: valid service under the Mayflower Rules of Civil Procedure.
singhski 2025-05-26 06:08 p.m.
A court “must have the power to decide the claim before it (subject-matter jurisdiction) and power over the parties before it (personal jurisdiction) before it can resolve a case.” Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortg. Corp ., 137 S. Ct. 553, 563 (2017).
singhski 2025-05-26 06:09 p.m.
And when a district court is “unable to hear a claim, because of lack of jurisdiction or some other legal hindrance,” it “has no choice but to dismiss.” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca , 516 U.S. 124, 136 (1995), that is in the case the service of process does not comport with established laws and rules of procedure
singhski 2025-05-26 06:10 p.m.
If the service does not comport with the governing procedural rules—whether by omission of the complaint, untimeliness, or delivery to the wrong entity—then the Court lacks authority over the defendant.
singhski 2025-05-26 06:11 p.m.
In such circumstances, the only proper course is dismissal or quashing of service until the defect is remedied. That will be reflected with our motion
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:17 p.m.
Uh, incorrect. You were given a copy of the petition in this channel and a summons in DMs
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:17 p.m.
"The doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding" 18 Moore's Federal Practice § 134.30, p. 134-62 (3d ed. 2000)
The Government cannot argue service via case channels is improper when the Government has used case channels to make service in prior cases. That is strictly prohibited under the doctrine.
@Toby
The Government cannot argue service via case channels is improper when the Government has used case channels to make service in prior cases. That is strictly prohibited under the doctrine.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:18 p.m.
In the event Singhski wants to pursue this argument, I ask that he be sworn in to represent under oath that the Government has not served parties via case channels in previous cases
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:19 p.m.
I assume he will not do so, as he knows that would be a false and perjurious representation subject to contempt of court and sanctions
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:20 p.m.
There are plenty of cases where the Government has done this, so Singhski’s argument must be rejected at the outset
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:20 p.m.
Simply put, the Government is estopped from raising this claim
BrendaPopplewellUh, incorrect. You were given a copy of the petition in this channel and a summons in DMs
singhski 2025-05-26 06:21 p.m.
Which is beyond the juncture, which is at the time of personal service of process
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:21 p.m.
He was pinged in the channel which had the file at the time of service of process
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:21 p.m.
Next question…
singhskiThis is the critical juncture for proper personal service; yet, no copy of the initial pleading accompanies it. Plaintiff is merely grasping at illusions in a futile effort to sust...
singhski 2025-05-26 06:22 p.m.
That is this photo right here
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:22 p.m.
He was pinged in the channel which had the file at the time of service of process
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:22 p.m.
Next question
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:22 p.m.
And he clearly saw the file
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:22 p.m.
And downloaded it
singhski 2025-05-26 06:23 p.m.
Nope, the service of process is a closed system, whatever was going on in this channel are reactions outside of the system
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:23 p.m.
Incorrect
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:23 p.m.
It was served on him in this channel
singhski 2025-05-26 06:23 p.m.
Mayf. R. Civ. P. 7(d); "At the time of personal service of process a copy of the initial pleading must be delivered to the party on whom service is made. The date and hour of service must be endorsed on the original process and all copies of it by the person making the service. The party seeking to effect personal service must furnish the person making service with the necessary copies."
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:23 p.m.
And that is accepted practice under stare decisis
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:23 p.m.
You are estopped from making this argument
BrendaPopplewellAnd that is accepted practice under stare decisis
singhski 2025-05-26 06:23 p.m.
This is just incoherent
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:24 p.m.
Do you want to try that again under oath?
BrendaPopplewell"The doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding" 18 ...
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:24 p.m.
^^
singhski 2025-05-26 06:25 p.m.
Can we refer Ms. Popplewell for phrenological examination? @Toby This is the second referral I have had to make today.
Specifically, if we could request information on:
(1) the perpendicularity from the hair to the eyebrows,
(2) size of beneficial organs and baser ones
(3) enhanced activity
(4) inertia or deficiency in brain activities
Specifically, if we could request information on:
(1) the perpendicularity from the hair to the eyebrows,
(2) size of beneficial organs and baser ones
(3) enhanced activity
(4) inertia or deficiency in brain activities
singhski 2025-05-26 06:26 p.m.
A Paramedic of the Clark County Regional Hospital will be able to assist the Court with such a request. Mayf. R. Civ. P. 7(d); "At the time of personal service of process a copy of the initial pleading must be delivered to the party on whom service is made. The date and hour of service must be endorsed on the original process and all copies of it by the person making the service. The party seeking to effect personal service must furnish the person making service with the necessary copies.". Makes it completely unequivocal what the personal service of process is and includes, the delivery has to be made DURING the service, which occurred with that message I have attached. It is completely absent.
BrendaPopplewell"The doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding" 18 ...
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:27 p.m.
^^
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:27 p.m.
Until Mr. Singhski represents to this court under oath that the Government has not relied on such service in past cases, I think it is clear that the argument must be rejected
singhski 2025-05-26 06:28 p.m.
Irrelevant because serving additional pleadings such as motions is not covered by the same language as Mayf. R. Civ. P. 7(d)
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:29 p.m.
Actually, it is very relevant. All documents must be furnished to opposing counsel
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:29 p.m.
And the Government engages in the same conduct it is now arguing to be improper
singhski 2025-05-26 06:29 p.m.
As they have been with a ping + the copy in a channel
BrendaPopplewellAnd the Government engages in the same conduct it is now arguing to be improper
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:29 p.m.
That would be dishonest and fraudulent
singhski 2025-05-26 06:29 p.m.
The ping + copy must happen simultaneously
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:29 p.m.
And as such we would seek sanctions and contempt penalties if Mr. Singhski makes such a false representation under oath
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:30 p.m.
Nope. There’s no requirement for the ping to be simultaneous
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:30 p.m.
It can be after
BrendaPopplewellNope. There’s no requirement for the ping to be simultaneous
singhski 2025-05-26 06:30 p.m.
Mayf. R. Civ. P. 7(d); "At the time of personal service of process a copy of the initial pleading must be delivered to the party on whom service is made. The date and hour of service must be endorsed on the original process and all copies of it by the person making the service. The party seeking to effect personal service must furnish the person making service with the necessary copies."
singhski 2025-05-26 06:30 p.m.
At the time of personal service. 
singhski 2025-05-26 06:31 p.m.
I can't wait for you to drown out this citation with a wall of text because it removes the tiles your case is built on
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:31 p.m.
Interesting, but incorrect. The Government was pinged by the bot at the same time the summons was effected.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:32 p.m.
Looks like 2 pings to me
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:32 p.m.
Simultaneous with service
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:32 p.m.
Next question
BrendaPopplewellInteresting, but incorrect. The Government was pinged by the bot at the same time the summons was effected.
singhski 2025-05-26 06:32 p.m.
Wrong, "same time" would suggest it happened either in quick succession or at once in conjunction with another, the ping and the filing were done almost 45 minutes separate from eachother
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:32 p.m.
BrendaPopplewellClick to see attachment.
singhski 2025-05-26 06:33 p.m.
But that summons didn't include a copy of the initial pleading. Hello?
Mayf. R. Civ. P. 7(d); "At the time of personal service of process a copy of the initial pleading must be delivered to the party on whom service is made. The date and hour of service must be endorsed on the original process and all copies of it by the person making the service. The party seeking to effect personal service must furnish the person making service with the necessary copies."
Mayf. R. Civ. P. 7(d); "At the time of personal service of process a copy of the initial pleading must be delivered to the party on whom service is made. The date and hour of service must be endorsed on the original process and all copies of it by the person making the service. The party seeking to effect personal service must furnish the person making service with the necessary copies."
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:33 p.m.
The channel included a copy of the pleading at the top.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:33 p.m.
singhski 2025-05-26 06:33 p.m.
I'm not sure what you served besides no hair, some lipstick and a little mascara. All I know that it certainly wasn't the initial pleading.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:34 p.m.
The channel included a copy of the pleading at the top.
singhski 2025-05-26 06:34 p.m.
Thus, not "delivered", we're going in circles here.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:34 p.m.
Actually, that’s the very definition of furnishing a copy
singhski 2025-05-26 06:34 p.m.
Read the summons, no where does it indicate where to find the initial pleading
singhski 2025-05-26 06:35 p.m.
so, that summons didn't furnish or provide the SG with anything
singhskiRead the summons, no where does it indicate where to find the initial pleading
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:35 p.m.
LOL it does and I send a screenshot of that part earlier
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:35 p.m. 
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:35 p.m.
You just perjured yourself
singhski 2025-05-26 06:35 p.m.
Yeah... hun. That doesn't indicate where to find the initial pleading, that tells him where to find the case channel.
Toby 2025-05-26 06:35 p.m.
Jesus christ
Toby 2025-05-26 06:35 p.m.
The pings
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:36 p.m.@Toby We move to hold Singhski in contempt of court for making a false representation to the court 
Toby 2025-05-26 06:36 p.m.
Enough back and forth, ill review tomorrow
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:36 p.m.
Criminal contempt*
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-26 06:36 p.m.
We ask that jail time and/or fine be imposed
BrendaPopplewellToby 2025-05-26 06:36 p.m.
Denied
BrendaPopplewellsinghski 2025-05-26 06:44 p.m.
We respectfully move to hold Mx. Brenda Popplewell in contempt of court for making a demonstrably false representation to this honorable Court.
In response to my objection that "the summons does not indicate where to find the initial pleading," Mx. Popplewell asserted, "LOL, it does, and I sent a screenshot of that part earlier." However, the text subsequently provided by Mx. Popplewell bears no relevance to her claim. Specifically, the excerpt states: "Find the case channel. You may type '#' in a random channel and begin typing the name of the case. It should automatically pop up, and you can press the link to go to that channel. "
This passage merely offers instructions for locating the case channel and does not, in any explicit manner—as Mx. Popplewell contends—address the location of the initial pleading. Consequently, Mx. Popplewell's assertion constitutes a clear misrepresentation of fact. If the Court were to accept such a misrepresentation, it would unduly prejudice the motion to dismiss in her favor. Such behavior undermines the integrity of these proceedings and warrants censure for contemptuous conduct. This directly falls into the Court's contempt authority as delineated by 5 M.S.C 1 § 2104.1, such frivolous conduct falls within the definition of "misbehavior" and must be swiftly dealt with by Your Honor.
We therefore respectfully request that the Court hold Mx. Popplewell in contempt and impose appropriate sanctions to uphold the sanctity of these proceedings. Such sanctions may include, but are not limited to, the imposition of a monetary fine commensurate with the gravity of this conduct, or, in the alternative, a custodial sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense.
In response to my objection that "the summons does not indicate where to find the initial pleading," Mx. Popplewell asserted, "LOL, it does, and I sent a screenshot of that part earlier." However, the text subsequently provided by Mx. Popplewell bears no relevance to her claim. Specifically, the excerpt states: "
This passage merely offers instructions for locating the case channel and does not, in any explicit manner—as Mx. Popplewell contends—address the location of the initial pleading. Consequently, Mx. Popplewell's assertion constitutes a clear misrepresentation of fact. If the Court were to accept such a misrepresentation, it would unduly prejudice the motion to dismiss in her favor. Such behavior undermines the integrity of these proceedings and warrants censure for contemptuous conduct. This directly falls into the Court's contempt authority as delineated by 5 M.S.C 1 § 2104.1, such frivolous conduct falls within the definition of "misbehavior" and must be swiftly dealt with by Your Honor.
We therefore respectfully request that the Court hold Mx. Popplewell in contempt and impose appropriate sanctions to uphold the sanctity of these proceedings. Such sanctions may include, but are not limited to, the imposition of a monetary fine commensurate with the gravity of this conduct, or, in the alternative, a custodial sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense.
singhski 2025-05-26 06:45 p.m.
Cc: @Toby Justice of the Peace
singhski 2025-05-26 07:48 p.m.
Cc: @Toby , Justice of the Peace, @Brenda
singhskiWe respectfully move to hold Mx. Brenda Popplewell in contempt of court for making a demonstrably false representation to this honorable Court. In response to my objection that "t...
Toby 2025-05-27 02:13 a.m.
Denied
singhskiCc: @Toby , Justice of the Peace, @Brenda
Toby 2025-05-27 02:14 a.m.
Thank you, I'll review when home
Toby 2025-05-27 04:02 a.m.@Brenda response within 24 hours. I'd also like to have a hearing over this, tonight
Toby 2025-05-27 04:02 a.m.@singhski
singhski 2025-05-27 04:47 a.m.@Toby @Brenda Do you think we could conduct the hearing over VC?
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 05:18 a.m.
No. Also I’m banned from Roblox until the 28th of May so either briefing or an asonchrynous hearing here is the best for me @Toby
singhskiToby 2025-05-27 05:59 a.m.
We could yeah, if @Brenda is up for it
TobyWe could yeah, if @Brenda is up for it
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 06:30 a.m.
I’m not
BrendaPopplewellI’m not
Toby 2025-05-27 06:42 a.m.
Ok, then I'd rather not clog this channel up, so I'll create another channel
TobyOk, then I'd rather not clog this channel up, so I'll create another channel
singhski 2025-05-27 06:46 a.m.
I fear the hearing might take too long and may carry onto tomorrow, could we atleast set a deadline for when arguments should end?
singhskiI fear the hearing might take too long and may carry onto tomorrow, could we atleast set a deadline for when arguments should end?
Toby 2025-05-27 06:57 a.m.
We can just set a time for when we'll convene and when it'll end. Counsel will have between the time we convene and the time we end to submit formatted arguments and submit rebuttals
Toby 2025-05-27 06:57 a.m.
During the hearing everyone should remain present as to ensure it doesn't drag on
Toby 2025-05-27 06:58 a.m.
But it shouldn't really take longer than 2 hours at most
Toby 2025-05-27 09:07 a.m.@singhski you've been added to the case on the website, please file your motion
Tobysinghski 2025-05-27 09:10 a.m.
Done
singhski 2025-05-27 09:11 a.m.@Toby Do you want me to also file the proof of lack of initial pleading in summons?
singhskiToby 2025-05-27 09:18 a.m.
Sure
singhskiDone
Toby 2025-05-27 09:18 a.m.
Thank you
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 10:15 a.m.
I don't have access to the website until the 28th so can I make a paperless response? @Toby
BrendaPopplewellI don't have access to the website until the 28th so can I make a paperless response? @Toby
Toby 2025-05-27 10:21 a.m.
Sure
Toby 2025-05-27 10:26 a.m.@Brenda are you able to submit by tonight, which then allows us to have a hearing with both sides responses being submitted
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 10:34 a.m.PAPERLESS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
The Government was properly summoned
The Government claims it was not summoned. This is untrue. On May 22, 2025, a summons was served on Solicitor General Nicklaus_s.See (Attachment 1). At the same time, Nicklaus_S was pinged by the clerkFlow bot in this channel where a copy of the petition was available. Moreover, the clerkFLOW bot also indicated where to find this petition: it gave (1) the case caption; (2) the case number; and (3) it included a guide on where to find the case channel in this Discord server. (Attachment 2).
The procedure by which the Government was summoned has been developed and approved by this Court—and it has been used by judges in the past and is accepted practice understare decisis .
The Government is Estopped from Challenging Service
"The doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding" 18 Moore's Federal Practice § 134.30, p. 134-62 (3d ed. 2000);see also 2 Edward Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England 352a (1797) ("It is called an estoppel or conclusion, because a man's own act or acceptance stoppeth or closeth up his mouth to allege or plead the truth.")
The Government is estopped from arguing that service through case channels is improper. Indeed, the Goverment has served documents on opposing counsel using case channels in the past. It can not argue that it is proper when it's convenient, and argue it's improper when it's incovenient.
@Toby (edited)
The Government claims it was not summoned. This is untrue. On May 22, 2025, a summons was served on Solicitor General Nicklaus_s.
The procedure by which the Government was summoned has been developed and approved by this Court—and it has been used by judges in the past and is accepted practice under
"The doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding" 18 Moore's Federal Practice § 134.30, p. 134-62 (3d ed. 2000);
The Government is estopped from arguing that service through case channels is improper. Indeed, the Goverment has served documents on opposing counsel using case channels in the past. It can not argue that it is proper when it's convenient, and argue it's improper when it's incovenient.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 10:37 a.m.
Also the Court has power to suspend any procedural rules where “the purposes of justice require it.” See United States v. Breitling, 61 U.S. 252, 254 (1857) (“It is always in the power of [a] court to suspend its own rules, or to except a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice require it.”); see also Cleveland Ins. Co. v. Globe Ins. Co., 98 U.S. 366, 374 (1878) (Clifford, J., dissenting) (“Rules of practice are established to promote the ends of justice, and where it appears that a given rule will have the opposite effect from that which it was intended to accomplish, courts of justice have never hesitated to establish an exception to it.”).
Here, the Government was properly summoned—under a procedure approved and developed by this Court—and was given a copy of the petition. Indeed, Nicklaus_S saw and downloaded the petition. Therefore, it is in the interests of justice to allow the petition to proceed.
@Toby
Here, the Government was properly summoned—under a procedure approved and developed by this Court—and was given a copy of the petition. Indeed, Nicklaus_S saw and downloaded the petition. Therefore, it is in the interests of justice to allow the petition to proceed.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 10:47 a.m.
(In fact, I'd be surprised if there's a single instance in the history of the Mayflower District Court where a civil summons had a complaint attached to it. 99%—if not 100%—of all civil cases I've ever been apart of have consisted of a summons with no complaint attached. Instead, the party is pinged in the case channel where a copy of the complaint is already available.)
@Toby
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 10:47 a.m.
So there's no procedural irregularity there
BrendaPopplewell(In fact, I'd be surprised if there's a single instance in the history of the Mayflower District Court where a civil summons had a complaint attached to it. 99%—if not 100%—of all ...
singhski 2025-05-27 11:26 a.m.@Toby Could we get this statement under oath?
singhski 2025-05-27 11:30 a.m.
I encourage Your Worship to get this statement under oath immediately, as it is incredibly pivotal to resolving this issue.
singhski 2025-05-27 11:31 a.m.
"Moreover, the clerkFLOW bot also indicated where to find this petition: it gave (1) the case caption; (2) the case number; and (3) it included a guide on where to find the case channel in this Discord server. (Attachment 2)." Yet no where does it directly provide the initial pleading, as required by 7(d), just the case channel
singhski 2025-05-27 11:31 a.m.
The language in 7(d) requires the furnishment to be explicit
singhski 2025-05-27 11:33 a.m.
and during the service of process, not after in a case channel
singhski 2025-05-27 11:38 a.m.Cleveland Ins. Co. v. Globe Ins . Co., 98 U.S. 366, 374 (1878) (Clifford, J., dissenting) (“Rules of practice are established to promote the ends of justice, and where it appears that a given rule will have the opposite effect from that which it was intended to accomplish, courts of justice have never hesitated to establish an exception to it.”).
But—“[t]he requirement that a court have personal jurisdiction flows…from the Due Process Clause.”Ins. Corp. of Ir. v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee , 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982). It “represents a restriction on judicial power…as a matter of individual liberty.” Id. Thus, before a court “may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied.” Omni Capital Int'l v. Rudolf Wolff Co ., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987).
So 7(d) still promoted the ends of justice, because personal jurisdiction flows from the Due Process Clause. Before a court can resolve a case, it “must have the power to
decide the claim before it (subject-matter jurisdiction) and power over the parties before it (personal jurisdiction).”Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortg. Corp ., 137 S. Ct. 553, 563 (2017). It's an incredibly big ask from the Plaintiff, to strike down a portion of the Rules of Procedure agreed upon by the rest of the Judicial Conference.
When a district court is “unable to hear a claim, because of lack of jurisdiction or some other legal hindrance,” it “has no choice but to dismiss.”Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca , 516 U.S. 124, 136 (1995). In this case, the only Things to be Remembered is the spirit of 7(d), why it exists, and why we must respect it instead of abandoninig it de facto using inadequate systems which have procedural defects—namely, lacking the initial pleading, which is a unequivocal requirement for proper service.(edited)
But—“[t]he requirement that a court have personal jurisdiction flows…from the Due Process Clause.”
So 7(d) still promoted the ends of justice, because personal jurisdiction flows from the Due Process Clause. Before a court can resolve a case, it “must have the power to
decide the claim before it (subject-matter jurisdiction) and power over the parties before it (personal jurisdiction).”
When a district court is “unable to hear a claim, because of lack of jurisdiction or some other legal hindrance,” it “has no choice but to dismiss.”
singhski 2025-05-27 11:40 a.m.
.
.
I'd also ask Your Worship to read the old summons document, while the complaint itself isn't attached, you are explicitly told where to find it. That is not the case here.
.
.(edited)
.
I'd also ask Your Worship to read the old summons document, while the complaint itself isn't attached, you are explicitly told where to find it. That is not the case here.
.
.(edited)
singhski 2025-05-27 11:44 a.m.
All the summons message attached above tells us is that "a lawsuit has been filed against you in which you are required to respond and make a defense"... no explicit indication on where to find that complaint; "You are required to submit a response to the civil complaint within 5 days from this message"...yet no explicit indication on where to find that complaint;"Failure to submit a response will result in default being entered"...no explicit indication on where to find that complaint; "Find the case channel...Find out who the presiding judge is...Notify the presiding judge"...the clear trend here is that it tells you have to respond to the civil complaint and engage with proceedings, but does not tell the served where to find the initial pleading.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 11:50 a.m.@Toby We move to strike Singhski's messages and for sanctions for cross-talking without leave of court.(edited)
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 11:50 a.m. 
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 11:50 a.m.
And intentionally flooding the channel
BrendaPopplewellClick to see attachment.
singhski 2025-05-27 11:51 a.m.
I am diagnosed with OCD.
Toby 2025-05-27 11:51 a.m.
I'm going to remind both parties here, that it is in contravention of my chamber rules located in chamber-information to make rebuttals and/or any arguments without leave from the Court. Keep this in mind moving forward.
CC:@Brenda @singhski
CC:
TobyI'm going to remind both parties here, that it is in contravention of my chamber rules located in chamber-information to make rebuttals and/or any arguments without leave from t...
singhski 2025-05-27 11:52 a.m.
Apologies, Your Worship.
Toby 2025-05-27 11:53 a.m.@singhski @Brenda What time are we all avalible tonight for a hearing, bare in mind you need to be present throughout. It shouldn't take longer then 2 hours max. This will take place on discord as well.
Tobysinghski 2025-05-27 11:54 a.m.
Is Your Honor available now?
Toby 2025-05-27 11:54 a.m.
I am
Toby 2025-05-27 11:54 a.m.@Brenda are you?
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 11:55 a.m.
I'm about to eat. 2 PM EST works for me
singhski 2025-05-27 11:55 a.m.
Tis now is the very witching time, most ripe for action.
BrendaPopplewellI'm about to eat. 2 PM EST works for me
Toby 2025-05-27 11:55 a.m.
That works for me, @singhski ?
TobyThat works for me, @singhski ?
singhski 2025-05-27 11:56 a.m.
That works for me
TobyBrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 11:56 a.m.
Also what is this hearing on
Toby 2025-05-27 11:56 a.m.
Perfect
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 11:56 a.m.
The petition or the motion to dismiss
BrendaPopplewellAlso what is this hearing on
Toby 2025-05-27 11:56 a.m.
the MTD
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 11:56 a.m.
Well, I can't see the point of a hearing when we've just briefed the issue
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 11:56 a.m.
This isn't exactly a complicated matter
Toby 2025-05-27 11:57 a.m.
Well its up to you two, we can either do a hearing and brief it there where you can do rebuttals, or I can rule based on what you've submitted thus far
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 11:57 a.m.
We're fine with a ruling based on what we've submitted so far
singhski 2025-05-27 11:57 a.m.
I think if Your Honor could pose some questions to both parties, that might be better
singhski 2025-05-27 11:58 a.m.
Whatever questions your Honor may have
Toby 2025-05-27 11:58 a.m.
Ok, that works
singhskiToby 2025-05-27 11:59 a.m.@Brenda Out of fairness, do you want to respond to this, or leave it as is
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 11:59 a.m.
I would ask that that part be stricken from the record given that it was made without leave of court
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 11:59 a.m.
But if it's not ,I can respond
Toby 2025-05-27 12:00 p.m.
Feel free to respond
Toby 2025-05-27 12:00 p.m.
after that there will be no more submissions about the matter unless I specifically ask for it
TobyFeel free to respond
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 12:04 p.m.
Well, most of what the Government cites hinges on a theory that it was not summoned.
That is not true. Solicitor General Nicklaus_S was summoned on the record. That summons included: (1) the case caption; (2) the case number; (3) the Discord server link; and (4) a guide on how to find this case channel.
As I discussed earlier, Solicitor General Nicklaus_S was also given a copy of the petition. Indeed, he was pinged in this channel by the clerkFlow bot simultaneously with the bot summoning him in DMs.
Moreover, Nicklaus_S both saw and downloaded the petition upon being summoned.
And I stand by what I said about the fact that this is how it's been done in almost every civil case in the past.(edited)
That is not true. Solicitor General Nicklaus_S was summoned on the record. That summons included: (1) the case caption; (2) the case number; (3) the Discord server link; and (4) a guide on how to find this case channel.
As I discussed earlier, Solicitor General Nicklaus_S was also given a copy of the petition. Indeed, he was pinged in this channel by the clerkFlow bot simultaneously with the bot summoning him in DMs.
Moreover, Nicklaus_S both saw and downloaded the petition upon being summoned.
And I stand by what I said about the fact that this is how it's been done in almost every civil case in the past.(edited)
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 12:05 p.m.
There's no Due Process argument to be made as they've been given fair notice of this lawsuit from the outset.(edited)
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 12:06 p.m. 
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 12:06 p.m. 
Toby 2025-05-27 12:20 p.m.
Thank you
Toby 2025-05-27 12:23 p.m.
I do agree that it is common practise for the defendant to just be served with a summons and they just find the complaint/petition themselves within the channel. @singhski If I were to be in your favour, what good would it do to ignore that common practise/precedent?
TobyI do agree that it is common practise for the defendant to just be served with a summons and they just find the complaint/petition themselves within the channel. <@9544586770861466...
singhski 2025-05-27 12:27 p.m.
That common practice doesn't conform with our rules, now usually, before this new system was implemented, you were told where to find the initial pleading, here that's not the case. It doesn't matter what the common practise is when it doesn't comport with our rules.
Mayf. R. Civ. P. 7(d); "At the time of personal service of process a copy of the initial pleading must be delivered to the party on whom service is made. The date and hour of service must be endorsed on the original process and all copies of it by the person making the service. The party seeking to effect personal service must furnish the person making service with the necessary copies."
If Your Worship would consider a defendant, other than the government, being served, how would they find the initial pleadingexplicitly ? Nick knew to find it here because he is an experienced litigant, but what about first time defendants? We owe Due Process of law to them
Mayf. R. Civ. P. 7(d); "At the time of personal service of process a copy of the initial pleading must be delivered to the party on whom service is made. The date and hour of service must be endorsed on the original process and all copies of it by the person making the service. The party seeking to effect personal service must furnish the person making service with the necessary copies."
If Your Worship would consider a defendant, other than the government, being served, how would they find the initial pleading
singhski 2025-05-27 12:30 p.m.
Bearing in mind most defendants are sub 90 IQ and the rules are in place for a reason
singhski 2025-05-27 12:31 p.m.
All the summons message attached above tells us is that "a lawsuit has been filed against you in which you are required to respond and make a defense"... no explicit indication on where to find that complaint; "You are required to submit a response to the civil complaint within 5 days from this message"...yet no explicit indication on where to find that complaint;"Failure to submit a response will result in default being entered"...no explicit indication on where to find that complaint; "Find the case channel...Find out who the presiding judge is...Notify the presiding judge"...the clear trend here is that it tells you have to respond to the civil complaint and engage with proceedings, but does not tell the served where to find the initial pleading.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 12:59 p.m.@Toby I have new evidence to submit
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:01 p.m.
This is proof that I did in fact give Nicklaus_s a link to the petition in our DMs
@Toby
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:02 p.m.
God bless
singhskiThat common practice doesn't conform with our rules, now usually, before this new system was implemented, you were told where to find the initial pleading, here that's not the case...
Toby 2025-05-27 01:03 p.m.
Thank you
BrendaPopplewellThis is proof that I did in fact give Nicklaus_s a link to the petition in our DMs @Toby
Toby 2025-05-27 01:03 p.m.
CC @singhski
singhskiThat common practice doesn't conform with our rules, now usually, before this new system was implemented, you were told where to find the initial pleading, here that's not the case...
Toby 2025-05-27 01:06 p.m.@Brenda I submit the same question to you: why should I follow common practise/precedent if they do not conform to the rules of procedure, as submitted by counsel
Toby 2025-05-27 01:06 p.m.
(once you answer, we'll address the video)
TobyBrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:13 p.m.
The current practice does conform to the rules of procedure.
If I hand you a bag with an apple inside it, did I hand you a bag or an apple? Logic dictates that I handed you both.
When Nicklaus_s was added to this channel, the petition was inside it. He had a duty to make himself familiar with the submission—that's simply the accepted practice in the District Court. In the same manner, if Your Honor posts a ruling here, every party is expected to follow it. Your Honor does not need to send every party a paper copy of said ruling in their DMs or by Union of Columbia mail. Same goes for motions... when a party makes a motion in this channel, serving them by DMs or Union of Columbia mail is unnecessary. Simply sending it here is sufficient to "serve" it on them.
If I hand you a bag with an apple inside it, did I hand you a bag or an apple? Logic dictates that I handed you both.
When Nicklaus_s was added to this channel, the petition was inside it. He had a duty to make himself familiar with the submission—that's simply the accepted practice in the District Court. In the same manner, if Your Honor posts a ruling here, every party is expected to follow it. Your Honor does not need to send every party a paper copy of said ruling in their DMs or by Union of Columbia mail. Same goes for motions... when a party makes a motion in this channel, serving them by DMs or Union of Columbia mail is unnecessary. Simply sending it here is sufficient to "serve" it on them.
BrendaPopplewellThis is proof that I did in fact give Nicklaus_s a link to the petition in our DMs @Toby
singhski 2025-05-27 01:19 p.m.
This is not service @Toby
Mayf. R. Civ. P. 7(d); "At the time of personal service of process a copy of the initial pleading must be delivered to the party on whom service is made. The date and hour of service must be endorsed on the original process and all copies of it by the person making the service. The party seeking to effect personal service must furnish the person making service with the necessary copies."
"AT THE TIME OF PERSONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS a copy of the initial pleading must be delivered to the party on whom the service is made."
Mayf. R. Civ. P. 7(d); "At the time of personal service of process a copy of the initial pleading must be delivered to the party on whom service is made. The date and hour of service must be endorsed on the original process and all copies of it by the person making the service. The party seeking to effect personal service must furnish the person making service with the necessary copies."
"
BrendaPopplewellClick to see attachment.
singhski 2025-05-27 01:19 p.m.
This message here is the time of personal service of process
singhski 2025-05-27 01:20 p.m.
It should be attached with that message
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:21 p.m.
All due process requires is that the party is put on notice of the lawsuit.
Anything else can be waived where “the purposes of justice require it.” See United States v. Breitling, 61 U.S. 252, 254 (1857) (“It is always in the power of [a] court to suspend its own rules, or to except a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice require it.”)
@Toby (edited)
singhski 2025-05-27 01:21 p.m.
or atleast should provide information explicitly where to find the initial pleading
singhski 2025-05-27 01:21 p.m.
Stop trying to avoid reading the rule. AT THE TIME OF PERSONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS .
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:21 p.m.
“It is always in the power of [a] court to suspend its own rules, or to except a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice require it.”
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:21 p.m.
So
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:21 p.m.
And "at the time of" is subject to interpretation
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:22 p.m.
I interpret that as either before or after the service—not at the very same nanosecond
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:22 p.m.
And he was, in fact, served the moment he was pinged
singhski 2025-05-27 01:22 p.m.
Okay, so, who served Nick, the bot, or you?
singhski 2025-05-27 01:22 p.m.
Because before it was the bot
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:22 p.m.
The clerkFLOW bot is an instrument that I used in serving Nicklaus_s
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:22 p.m.
I also sent him a courtesy copy
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:23 p.m.
And that courtesy copy immediately destroys any due process argument you may raise
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:23 p.m.@Toby
singhski 2025-05-27 01:23 p.m.
Nope, that copy needs to be attached along side the message
"AT THE TIME OF PERSONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS a copy of the initial pleading must be delivered to the party on whom the service is made."
"AT THE TIME OF PERSONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS a copy of the initial pleading must be delivered to the party on whom the service is made."
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:23 p.m.@Toby Your honor, I don't see the word "attached" in that quote
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:23 p.m.
Do you?
Toby 2025-05-27 01:24 p.m.
ok pause, so I can read
singhski 2025-05-27 01:24 p.m.
How else would you deliver it at the same time??????
BrendaPopplewellThis is proof that I did in fact give Nicklaus_s a link to the petition in our DMs @Toby
Toby 2025-05-27 01:28 p.m.@Brenda What is the time gap between you sending the link to the message, and the summons being issued
TobyBrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:29 p.m.
24 minutes I believe
Toby 2025-05-27 01:29 p.m.
Can this be affirmed
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:30 p.m. 
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:30 p.m.
29-53 (to find the difference) gives you 24 @Toby
Toby 2025-05-27 01:30 p.m.
Ok, thank you
singhski 2025-05-27 01:30 p.m.
24. Most of us were conceived in half of that
Toby 2025-05-27 01:30 p.m.
Ok, I'm going to rule
singhski 2025-05-27 01:31 p.m.
Definitely not ""AT THE TIME OF PERSONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS"
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:31 p.m.@Toby Just to put that in perspective.
24 minutes is so little that i could legally say "He was given that minutes before being served"
24 minutes is so little that i could legally say "He was given that minutes before being served"
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 01:31 p.m.
Its so little that it doesn't even constitute an hour, let alone half an hour
singhski 2025-05-27 01:32 p.m.
I encourage Your Worship to sit in a room for 24 minutes with no stimulation and feel how long it is
singhski 2025-05-27 01:56 p.m.
Fyi now it has been over 24 minutes since I sent this message^
Toby 2025-05-27 02:13 p.m.
I'm grateful to both of you, for your submissions to this matter.
While the Court acknowledges the importance of adhering strictly to the Rules of Civil Procedure, I do not find it either sufficient or reasonable to dismiss this action on the basis that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction due to allegedly improper service.
It is a matter of record that the former Solicitor General, Nicklaus_s, was served via the “ClerkFlow” bot — a bot routinely employed by this Court to effect service of process in civil and criminal matters. While use of ClerkFlow is an accepted means of transmission, it must still comply with the substantive requirements of Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 7(d), namely that service must include the initial pleading.
That said, Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 7(d) states: "At the time of personal service of process a copy of the initial pleading must be delivered to the party on whom service is made. " It is therefore not sufficient to issue a summons in isolation; the summons must be accompanied by the petition or complaint to satisfy the procedural rules.
While the Court acknowledges the importance of adhering strictly to the Rules of Civil Procedure, I do not find it either sufficient or reasonable to dismiss this action on the basis that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction due to allegedly improper service.
It is a matter of record that the former Solicitor General, Nicklaus_s, was served via the “ClerkFlow” bot — a bot routinely employed by this Court to effect service of process in civil and criminal matters. While use of ClerkFlow is an accepted means of transmission, it must still comply with the substantive requirements of Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 7(d), namely that service must include the initial pleading.
That said, Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 7(d) states: "
Toby 2025-05-27 02:13 p.m.
-
This Court is satisfied that the requirement for sufficient service has been met, given that the petitioner sent a direct link to the petition to the former Solicitor General, Nicklaus_s 24 minutes before the summons order was issued, thereby affording proper notice of the proceedings, therefore giving this Court personal jurisdiction over the respondent. The respondent contends this position saying that 24 minutes is outside of the scope of rule 7(b), where it is stated that it must be sent at "... the time of personal service of process." This Court does not agree with that assessment. If, however, the petitioner were to send the petition/complaint 24 hours after the summons order was issued, then this Court would agree with the respondent in saying that it is reasonably outside the scope of time that the complaint/petition is expected to be sent to the respondent when the summons order is issued.
Therefore this Court deems that the service is valid, and as such, personal jurisdiction over the respondent is established.
For the foregoing reason, it isHEREBY ORDERED:
SO ORDERED
Signed,
Hon. Tobyrulles4568
D.C.J.
CC:@Brenda @singhski
This Court is satisfied that the requirement for sufficient service has been met, given that the petitioner sent a direct link to the petition to the former Solicitor General, Nicklaus_s 24 minutes before the summons order was issued, thereby affording proper notice of the proceedings, therefore giving this Court personal jurisdiction over the respondent. The respondent contends this position saying that 24 minutes is outside of the scope of rule 7(b), where it is stated that it must be sent at "... the time of personal service of process." This Court does not agree with that assessment. If, however, the petitioner were to send the petition/complaint 24 hours after the summons order was issued, then this Court would agree with the respondent in saying that it is reasonably outside the scope of time that the complaint/petition is expected to be sent to the respondent when the summons order is issued.
Therefore this Court deems that the service is valid, and as such, personal jurisdiction over the respondent is established.
For the foregoing reason, it is
(1) That the Motion to Dismiss submitted by the respondent isDENIED ; and(2) The respondent, from the time of this ruling being published, has 48 hours to submit a response to the petition filed by the petitioner.
Signed,
Hon. Tobyrulles4568
D.C.J.
CC:
Toby 2025-05-27 02:14 p.m.
ngl I nearly bought the more expensive nitro just to send that
singhski 2025-05-27 02:14 p.m.
Now hold on you could just order a reservice
Toby 2025-05-27 02:15 p.m.
I deem the service as sufficient, if you disagree then you are free to appeal my decision
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:16 p.m.@Toby Given that the Court has deemed service sufficient, I ask that the Government be held in default.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:16 p.m.
The Court must apply the correct legal standard in determining whether to enter default.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:16 p.m.
I.e., whether good cause or excusable neglect existed.
Toby 2025-05-27 02:17 p.m.@singhski rebutt
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:17 p.m.
I have evidence indicating that the Government intentionally missed the deadline
@Toby
singhski 2025-05-27 02:17 p.m.
Nope, @Toby we are moving for a stay because we're appealing this ruling
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:18 p.m.
You can't appeal the decision because it is not a final judgment
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:18 p.m.
We have a final judgment rule
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:18 p.m.
You'd have to wait for a final judgment to challenge it
BrendaPopplewellYou can't appeal the decision because it is not a final judgment
singhski 2025-05-27 02:18 p.m.
A motion to dismiss is an interlocutory matter
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:18 p.m.
And stays are appellate matters. Feel free to apply with SCOM
BrendaPopplewellAnd stays are appellate matters. Feel free to apply with SCOM
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:18 p.m.
^^
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:18 p.m.
Waiting time for SCOM is approximately... 6 months
BrendaPopplewellAnd stays are appellate matters. Feel free to apply with SCOM
singhski 2025-05-27 02:21 p.m.
Where is this principle explicitly stated? I find no authority suggesting that a trial court categorically lacks jurisdiction to issue a stay. In fact, trial courts have frequently exercised such authority—consider, for instance, Judge Acerxtro’s well-reasoned decision to grant a stay in the seminal case of Tdark v. Zrihem. In fact, trial courts have inherent authority to stay proceedings, especially when an interlocutory matter is pending.
singhski 2025-05-27 02:22 p.m.
If we look to IRL stay of proceedings, see for example 9 U.S. Code § 3
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:22 p.m.
Motions to dismiss for improper service do not fall within the collateral order doctrine.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:22 p.m.
They are not appealable until a final judgment is made.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:23 p.m.
The Court found your motion baseless, there's no use in staying proceedings.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:23 p.m.
In fact, you cannot appeal it under the final judgment rule.
singhski 2025-05-27 02:23 p.m.
Nope, for personal jurisdiction*
singhski 2025-05-27 02:23 p.m.
which indeed does fall within the collateral order doctrine
Toby- This Court is satisfied that the requirement for sufficient service has been met, given that the petitioner sent a direct link to the petition to the former Solicitor General, Ni...
singhski 2025-05-27 02:24 p.m.
This, in effect, does conclusively determine the disputed question because otherwise we will be held in default
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:25 p.m.
I disagree. Feel free to apply with SCOM.
BrendaPopplewellI disagree. Feel free to apply with SCOM.
singhski 2025-05-27 02:25 p.m.
We will litigate it there, in the meanwhile, @Toby Your Worship, you ought to issue a stay of these proceedings
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:26 p.m.
Anywho, I'd like to move unto presenting evidence that the Government intentionally missed the deadline to respond.@Toby
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:26 p.m.
Proving that no good cause or excusable neglect existed.
singhskiWe will litigate it there, in the meanwhile, @Toby Your Worship, you ought to issue a stay of these proceedings
singhski 2025-05-27 02:27 p.m.
I can provide a timeframe for when the appeal will be filed that would justify the stay being issued today
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:27 p.m.
Stays are an appellate matter. Feel free to apply with SCOM.
singhski 2025-05-27 02:27 p.m.
Nope, they are not.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:27 p.m.
Yope, they are.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:27 p.m.
And there is precedent in the Mayflower Reports.
singhski 2025-05-27 02:28 p.m.
Please do send
singhski 2025-05-27 02:29 p.m.
This conclusively determines the disputed question--the Court says it doesn't lack personal jurisdiction.
This is absolutely separate from the merits of the case.
This is effectively unreviewable on appeal after final judgment because the harm cannot be undone
This is absolutely separate from the merits of the case.
This is effectively unreviewable on appeal after final judgment because the harm cannot be undone
singhski 2025-05-27 02:30 p.m.@Toby Would you like for the motion to be put on paper?
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:30 p.m.
Then apply with SCOM. Until then—and until they should grant such an application for a stay—this Court is free to proceed
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:31 p.m.
It appears that the Government is attempting to stall these proceedings with a baseless motion and now a frivilous appeal.
@Toby
singhskiToby 2025-05-27 02:32 p.m.
Yes
BrendaPopplewellThen apply with SCOM. Until then—and until they should grant such an application for a stay—this Court is free to proceed
Toby 2025-05-27 02:32 p.m.
Please provide the full case citation to this
TobyPlease provide the full case citation to this
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:33 p.m.
Jerry's Flower Barn v. State of Mayflower, 1 Mayf. 20, 21-22 (2025)(edited)
Toby 2025-05-27 02:33 p.m.@singhski Have that motion submitted by 6pm EST
Tobysinghski 2025-05-27 02:35 p.m.
Thank you, your honor
BrendaPopplewellAnywho, I'd like to move unto presenting evidence that the Government intentionally missed the deadline to respond.@Toby
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:35 p.m.@Toby
Toby 2025-05-27 02:35 p.m.
You can submit it
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:37 p.m.
This is a picture of Solicitor General Nicklaus_s stating "I'm not gonna file on time" @Toby
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:37 p.m.
Proving the deadline was missed intentionally
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:38 p.m.
As such, no good cause or excusable neglect exists to counter entry of default
Toby 2025-05-27 02:38 p.m.
I don't see how that's intentional, for me that seems like he's acknowledging that he doesn't have enough time left to file the MTD he planned on filing
TobyI don't see how that's intentional, for me that seems like he's acknowledging that he doesn't have enough time left to file the MTD he planned on filing
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:39 p.m.
That was a day before the deadline, and, given that Nicklaus_s is in Eastern Time, he had lots of time to prepare a response
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:39 p.m.
And there's no reason the Government didn't seek an extension of time(edited)
BrendaPopplewellThat was a day before the deadline, and, given that Nicklaus_s is in Eastern Time, he had lots of time to prepare a response
Toby 2025-05-27 02:40 p.m.
For all we know, he could've had real life implications that precluded him from being able to meet the deadline
TobyFor all we know, he could've had real life implications that precluded him from being able to meet the deadline
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:40 p.m.
Given that he knew in advance that he did not intend to file a response, the Government must seek an extension of time in advance
singhski 2025-05-27 02:40 p.m.@Toby Can we get until 1pm EST tomorrow? I'm sick.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:40 p.m.
It did not do so
singhskiBrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:41 p.m.
Then another employee of the DOJ should be assigned, frankly @Toby
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:41 p.m.
If he is sick today, who is not to say that he will also be conveniently sick tomorrow(edited)
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:41 p.m.
Every day these proceedings are delayed is favorable to the Government
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:41 p.m.
Hence Mr. Singhski's intend to stay proceedings for an appeal he won't win, based on a motion the Court has denied, and knowing fully well that SCOM is inactive
BrendaPopplewellGiven that he knew in advance that he did not intend to file a response, the Government must seek an extension of time in advance
Toby 2025-05-27 02:42 p.m.
I agree with you in part, he could've filed for an extension, but I don't deem that him failing to file for an extension to be intentional or malicious, based off of the evidence you've provided
singhskisinghski 2025-05-27 02:42 p.m.@Toby
singhski 2025-05-27 02:43 p.m.
I need more time to take care of myself.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:43 p.m.
We object to that btw for the reasons stated above
singhski 2025-05-27 02:43 p.m.
Whilst writing the motion
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:43 p.m.
The Government is trying to incessantly delay proceedings in a case that was originally going to be resolved with a same-day hearing @Toby
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:43 p.m.
It has now been multiple days
singhski 2025-05-27 02:44 p.m.
If we could atleast get up to 9PM EST?
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:44 p.m.
I'm not sure why Mr. Singhski is attempting to file an appellate motion with a trial court?
singhskiToby 2025-05-27 02:47 p.m.
I'm very hesitant on granting this, purely down to it delaying this case further. Whilst I hold the upmost sympathy to you being sick, and having to defend this case at the same time, I cannot in good conscious sanction another delay that costs this much time, if need be have a member of your office draft it and you proof read it and approve it. As such, I will be granting an extension to 9 PM, but after that no more extensions will be granted for the government in this matter, this is the end of the rope.
TobyI'm very hesitant on granting this, purely down to it delaying this case further. Whilst I hold the upmost sympathy to you being sick, and having to defend this case at the same ti...
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:57 p.m.
Can't I just re-serve him right now to render his "appeal" futile and eliminate his argument for a stay
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 02:57 p.m.
That time would be better spent writing a response to my FOIA petition
BrendaPopplewellCan't I just re-serve him right now to render his "appeal" futile and eliminate his argument for a stay
singhski 2025-05-27 03:09 p.m.
singhski 2025-05-27 03:09 p.m.
Asked and answered, move on.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 03:12 p.m.
Well, Mr. Singhski wants a stay based on improper service (an argument that was rejected).
So why can't I just serve him again right now with a link to the petition?
@Toby
So why can't I just serve him again right now with a link to the petition?
BrendaPopplewell 2025-05-27 03:13 p.m.
That would eliminate his appeal intended to delay the case and automatically eliminate his need for a stay.
BrendaPopplewellCan't I just re-serve him right now to render his "appeal" futile and eliminate his argument for a stay
Toby 2025-05-27 03:13 p.m.
No, I'll review his motion, he has till 9 PM tonight, and for the sake of time it's not going to be a lengthy back and forth like the MTD
singhski 2025-05-27 07:07 p.m.@Toby Nvm we withdraw our argument
singhskiToby 2025-05-27 07:28 p.m.
Ok, file your response within 24 hours please
Toby 2025-05-28 03:39 p.m.@singhski reminder
Tobysinghski 2025-05-28 03:39 p.m.
Is that 24 hours from when you sent that message?
singhskiIs that 24 hours from when you sent that message?
Toby 2025-05-28 03:40 p.m.
I just realised 24 is a typo, it's meant to say 48
Toby 2025-05-28 03:40 p.m.
48hrs from the time of the ruling on the mtd being released
singhski 2025-05-29 09:04 a.m.@Toby Could you please add @Nationgreat (co-counsel)
Toby 2025-05-29 09:05 a.m.
Yeah
Toby used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-05-29 09:05 a.m. @Toby has added @Nationgreat to the case channel.
Case Modified
Toby 2025-05-29 09:06 a.m.
Notice of Appearance in 24hrs please
Nationgreat 2025-05-29 01:33 p.m.
Defendants' brief was added to the court record. Google Drive link is attached below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eyUEsjfJn3r4zzGyela2pyjgYIN2IirY/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eyUEsjfJn3r4zzGyela2pyjgYIN2IirY/view?usp=sharing
singhski 2025-05-29 04:06 p.m.@Toby ^
Toby 2025-05-29 04:12 p.m.
Are you taking the mick
Toby 2025-05-29 04:15 p.m.
Why haven't you submitted a response
TobyWhy haven't you submitted a response
singhski 2025-05-29 04:16 p.m.
Woops, it has been labeled wrong it's a Brief in Opposition to the petition
singhskiWoops, it has been labeled wrong it's a Brief in Opposition to the petition
Nationgreat 2025-05-29 04:16 p.m.
The naming on the website is correct, forgot to change the file name.
Toby 2025-05-29 04:16 p.m.
Ok, that's fine
Toby 2025-05-29 04:16 p.m.
I'll review over the next couple of days
TobyI'll review over the next couple of days
singhski 2025-05-29 04:17 p.m.
As I understand it, Ms. Popplewell requires the petition to be disposed of quickly? These usually end within 24 hours with a hearing
Toby 2025-05-29 04:18 p.m.
I'm aware, but I'm working 10 hour shifts Saturday and Sunday, and tomorrow is my only day off to study for an exam in succession law and another final exam, so I'm kinda swamped for time, if I can, I'll try and have it read and a ruling issued by end of day tomorrow
TobyI'm aware, but I'm working 10 hour shifts Saturday and Sunday, and tomorrow is my only day off to study for an exam in succession law and another final exam, so I'm kinda swamped f...
singhski 2025-05-29 04:18 p.m.
Thank you.
Nationgreat 2025-05-29 04:20 p.m.@Toby Are filings on the website supposed to appear instantly after being filed? I tried to file it two times but it still doesn't appear in the documents tab for me.
NationgreatToby 2025-05-29 04:25 p.m.
I'm pretty sure it needs to be approved first, not 100% sure, you'll need to ask Brenda
Nationgreat 2025-05-29 04:29 p.m.
NationgreatDefendants' brief was added to the court record. Google Drive link is attached below. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eyUEsjfJn3r4zzGyela2pyjgYIN2IirY/view?usp=sharing
singhski 2025-05-29 05:13 p.m.@Brenda
Toby 2025-05-30 09:36 a.m.OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR FOIA RELEASE ORDER
CC:@singhski @Nationgreat @Brenda
Opinion and Order can be found [HERE](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lxCBOvphsOPzuPL76k6X2y6kvrE4NJxA/view?usp=sharing)
CC:
singhski 2025-05-30 09:39 a.m.@Toby Thank you, your Honor.
Toby 2025-05-30 09:42 a.m.
Is there anything else that needs to be addressed before we archive this
TobyIs there anything else that needs to be addressed before we archive this
singhski 2025-05-30 09:44 a.m.
None from our side
Nationgreat 2025-05-30 09:46 a.m.
Thank you, Your Honor.
TobyIs there anything else that needs to be addressed before we archive this
Toby 2025-05-30 01:51 p.m.@Brenda
TobyToby 2025-05-30 02:07 p.m.@singhski can you ensure that this judgement is forwarded to LCPD please
Tobysinghski 2025-05-30 02:08 p.m.
Yes, it was
Toby 2025-05-30 02:08 p.m.
Perfect, thank you
Toby 2025-05-30 03:49 p.m.@Kezzera ready to archive
Toby used /transcript
clerkFlow Bot2025-05-30 03:49 p.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow Bot2025-05-30 03:49 p.m.
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1329678726383927409/1378098093744062545 Successfully created transcript.
clerkFlow Bot2025-05-30 03:49 p.m.
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1329678726383927409/1378098097191780496 Successfully created transcript.
Kezzera 2025-05-30 04:15 p.m.
1
Mark
1BrendaPopplewell used /transcript
clerkFlow Bot2025-05-30 05:13 p.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow Bot2025-05-30 05:13 p.m.
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1329678726383927409/1378119113062486109 Successfully created transcript.
clerkFlow Bot2025-05-30 05:13 p.m.
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1329678726383927409/1378119118040858715 Successfully created transcript.
BrendaPopplewell 2025-06-04 04:49 p.m.@Toby may i file a motion for reconsideration
BrendaPopplewellToby 2025-06-04 04:50 p.m.
why
BrendaPopplewell 2025-06-04 04:56 p.m.
I believe there are special circumstances to be considered
BrendaPopplewell 2025-06-04 04:56 p.m.@Toby
BrendaPopplewellI believe there are special circumstances to be considered
Toby 2025-06-04 04:57 p.m.
fine file it
Toby 2025-06-04 06:35 p.m.@Brenda 24hrs from now
Toby 2025-06-08 07:58 a.m.@Brenda This is going back to the archive
Exported 591 messages